Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[The Dude]

What really amuses me is posters who come along and say that evolution is unscientific and untestable (e.g. circular reasoning, no fixed form) and then they turn right around and say it has been tested and discredited by experiments. Well which is it? Untestable -- or tested and discredited. It can't be both.

As a matter of fact there are quite a few scientists who disagree with Darwin, they disagree with the notion that species can change their morphology, and they have actually conducted experiments which discredit evolution as an viable hypothesis.

Please provide a name and a link to these experiments. I like to read about science experiments but I am not familiar with the research you are mentioning here.

[spinner]

I understand your position, and I understand enough about evolution to realize that it is all a guess mixed with circular reasoning. The Darwinian Tree of Life has no fixed form - it changes depending upon who is drawing it. They even have created computer programs to generate new ones. This is not even scientific in my view. Either they have PROOF, or they have speculation. It's ok to be that way , provided they would be willing to say that the jury is still out and it has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But they don't do this; what they do is claim they have OVERWHELMING evidence, which they don't. And they ridicule and harass others who question their science. This is most unscientific of them to do. I don't demand that they give up their beliefs, I demand that they LIVE up to them. And provide consistent incontrovertible evidence. They have not done so.

As a matter of fact there are quite a few scientists who disagree with Darwin, they disagree with the notion that species can change their morphology, and they have actually conducted experiments which discredit evolution as an viable hypothesis.

littlechild, you make quite a few accusations about supposed holes in evolutionary theory, to which I can only say (wait for it)...

CFR

[Kyle]

What is CFR?

[Teancum]

Apes and man have a common ancestor yes.

Yes, much like any other animal spirit.

Obviously in this scenario they could not have been. Thinking more about it one might ask why, if big brained homo sapiens have been around all these 100's of thousands of years, didn't civilizations and all their trappings appear much much earlier? The answer could be that not being spirit children of God (more like dolphins or neanderthals perphaps), their spirits made less use of the available brain.

Correct. Notice that in 2 Nephi 2:22 the already created Adam was placed into the condition of no death. This implies a time in which there was not a state of no death (or implies the possibility of such).

Yes you do. We have discussed it at length on this and on Shades' board. You disagree but I think it's more because you can't stand the notion that an LDS person may have found the way to accept evolution without conflicting with doctrine than because of some flaw in my hypothesis.

No really I am confused at least at the death thing. The rest I get. Are you saying that there was no death for all time before the spirit child adam was placed into a homosapien that came from evolution? So all the millions of years before this Adam there was no death? That the the pre adamite humans were immortal?

[The Dude]

What is CFR?

call for references

On MA&DB, you are supposed to back up your factual claims whenever requested.

[BCSpace]

No really I am confused at least at the death thing. The rest I get. Are you saying that there was no death for all time before the spirit child adam was placed into a homosapien that came from evolution? So all the millions of years before this Adam there was no death?

No. I am saying that because of evolution, there was death in the world for billions of years until Adam was placed in the garden.

I am also saying this does not conflict with LDS doctrine because the scriptures differentiate between the creative period to which a state of no death is NOT ascribed and an already finished (created) period in which there was no death in the world until the Fall. So in my hypothesis, the period of no death is relatively short, from the time Adam is placed in the garden to the Fall.

That the the pre adamite humans were immortal?

Mortal as you or I. However, not having literal spirit children of God placed within them (having other spirits to animate their bodies), they do not qualify for the scriptural definition of man. Hence Adam is the first man but not the first homo sapiens.

[spinner]

Yes, of course it does. Everything makes perfect sense in an evolutionary context, which points out quite nicely on of the severest traditional problems with evolutionary theory when extended to such questions: its inherent circularity and unfalsifiability. Evolution, stretched to explain everything, hence explains nothing. The macroevolutionary claims of the theory cannot be verified empirically in any direct manner, and the fact that the theory can be tweaked post hoc ergo propter hoc, to accept any present observational evidence, simply means that no argument or evidence is allowed to critique the theory because every argument regarding it is proof of its truth; that is, our brains and CNS evoled precisely in such a way as would allow us intellectual skepticism of aspects of evolutionary theory. Hence, the theory is confirmed, and makes perfect sense form an evolutionary perspective.

Uhm, since when has the ability of a scientific theory to satisfactorily explain a broad range of natural phenomenon been considered a "problem"?

And evolution is in fact falsifiable, and in the cases where it has been put to the test it has been confirmed. For instance, genetics have been an ideal laboratory to test evolutionary theory. The idea of genes had not even been imagined in Darwin's time, and they could have disproved his theories conclusively. Instead gene theory has overwhelmingly confirmed evolution.

The Alice-through-the-looking-glass nature of philosophical naturalism is a real philosophical problem for scientism of this kind because, as with other aspects of the human experience, its a self reinforcing perceptual loop. The frog in the well believes the well is the entire universe (not just its entire universe) because his perceptions are closed to all phenomena beyond it. The Gospel opens our perceptions - expands them beyond this particular, shall we say, frequency on a much larger bandwidth of existent reality.

So evolution is, according to you, circular and unverifiable but religious thinking is reliable? At least the scientific community substantially agrees on what evolution is and how it works. And how it could be falsified, for that matter. However, despite your claims to having access to some expanded bandwidth of perception, there is no objective way for you to demonstrate the correctness of your enhanced ability of perception, and even the vast majority of the world's religious believers would disagree markedly with what you think is reality.

Accessing this greater perceptual range, however, has certain requirements. Why so many refuse to so much as approach the possibility of such a perceptual expansion is a fascinating question, especially spiritually (the parable of the sower).

You can turn to this parable sower so as to blame the supposed inadequacies of the recipient rather than inherent weaknesses in the message on why your reality is so frequently rejected. I'll stick with an objectively verifiable method for understanding reality.

[Kyle]

call for references

On MA&DB, you are supposed to back up your factual claims whenever requested.

Thanks.

[Cold Steel]

One area that I think people make a big mistake is in pointing out how perfect the earth's environment is for supporting life, as if it were designed for that purpose. To me that's backward thinking. Life is the way we know it because it has perfectly adapted to the earth's environment.

Not many lifeforms can tolerate environs of frozen oceans and a frigid environment that keep trees, shrubs and other oxygen-producing vegetation alive. Neither can life find a fertile growing area in an atmosphere where the water has boiled away and produces a vast greenhouse effect. Earth strikes the perfect balance where it can tolerate small climatic changes and produce a near perfect balance for life. True, there's always the chance that it just happened (we are talking about a universe large enough to allow random occurrences to create such an environment). The question is, does the absence of empiric evidence for a God fully negate the chances that He exists?

It's been said that the popularity of evolution rests on the supposition that there are no other viable explanations for the development of life. This is true in the sense that most scientists will not proceed from the assumption that there is an intelligent designer. That, they say, would be ridiculous. But what if they're wrong? As far as I know, science cannot perceive the unseen worldâ??dimensions in which spirits dwell, for example. People can record voices, footsteps in empty rooms, apparitions and other supernatural phenomena, but then if it exists, why can't science detect it? Instead, contrary to evidence, science denies it because it can't detect it.

The problem with science is, it only works on what is detectable and measurable. This is fine if there's nothing outside the detectable and measurable, but what if there is something there? Joseph Smith's revelations teach us that the universe is composed of two primary elements: that which acts, and that which is acted upon. That which acts is called "intelligence," and that which is acted upon is called "matter." God is the master of intelligence and thus, matter. He can command the sea to part or the water to turn to wine; however, science cannot take God into the equation because they cannot detect Him. People like prophets come along and say, "We saw Him," and they're dismissed out of hand. For this reason, science will always be flawed. It will never look for things that are caused by the undetectable, even though they acknowledge that for most of human existence, many things have been undetectable. Germs, for example. Invisible light. Once science detects what was previously undetectable, it progresses.

Joseph Fielding Smith put it very well:

If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?

Even during my relatively brief life, I've lost count of the major discoveries that have caused all the textbooks to be rewritten. This includes astronomy, geology, anthropology, archeology, and physics, to name a few. Future textbooks are full of stuff we have no idea about now, so I don't become discouraged when there are perceived clashes between science and religion.

[littlechild]

What really amuses me is posters who come along and say that evolution is unscientific and untestable (e.g. circular reasoning, no fixed form) and then they turn right around and say it has been tested and discredited by experiments. Well which is it? Untestable -- or tested and discredited. It can't be both.

Please provide a name and a link to these experiments. I like to read about science experiments but I am not familiar with the research you are mentioning here.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

http://www.discovery.org/v/341

By and large there haven't been any experiments to test evolution. The links I have provided show that when tested, evolutionary theories don't perform.

From my reading, I have learned that when geneticists attempt to engineer evolution, they end up with miserable failures, like the four winged flies which CAN'T.

And the Miller-Urey experiment which failed to provide conclusive proof that life could have originated spontaneously from a mixture of gases and lightning. In fact what was learned is that the Miller-Urey hypothesis fails to account for the composition of the earth and the atmosphere at origin.

If there were anything more substantial than mere assertions that species give rise to other species, that would catch my interest, but in every single case, I find the evidence non-existent. As a guess, or a hunch, or a hypothesis, these daring assertions serve well, but as testable, falsifiable, or demonstrable truths, they fall exceedingly short of the mark.

In my never to be humble opinion, evolution is BUNK and the only thing that props up this untenable theory is the vehement exertions of the scientific materialist community who have been taught the incorrect traditions of their forefathers.

[The Dude]

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

http://www.discovery.org/v/341

By and large there haven't been any experiments to test evolution. The links I have provided show that when tested, evolutionary theories don't perform.

Anyone who clicks on your links will see some pretty weak stuff: no experiments, but "doubts"; a mathematician with some vague handwaving; and some comments about origin of life (which is a completely separate field from evolution). And you end by knocking down your own claim that there have been experiments discrediting evolution. I guess that's what happens when you go looking for references to back up your claims but there are no experiments to be found.

This is better: Studies on experimental evolution by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html

And the Miller-Urey experiment which failed to provide conclusive proof that life could have originated spontaneously from a mixture of gases and lightning. In fact what was learned is that the Miller-Urey hypothesis fails to account for the composition of the earth and the atmosphere at origin.

Origin of life is a separate field from evolution. It could be correctly described as "...a guess, or a hunch, or a hypothesis, these daring assertions serve well, but as testable, falsifiable, or demonstrable truths, they fall exceedingly short of the mark." <--- quoting you. You misplace those comments when trying to describe evolution, yet "origin of life" is what you really should be describing that way. I would agree that how life originated is a mystery, but please don't conflate it with evolution of life (however it happened to originate).

In my never to be humble opinion, evolution is BUNK and the only thing that props up this untenable theory is the vehement exertions of the scientific materialist community who have been taught the incorrect traditions of their forefathers.

At least nobody is going to deal you a CFR for your humble opinion.

[spinner]

If there were anything more substantial than mere assertions that species give rise to other species, that would catch my interest, but in every single case, I find the evidence non-existent.

You don't seem to be looking very hard. Google "Evidence of speciation", first link on the page: "Observed Instances of Speciation"

[Tarski]

You don't seem to be looking very hard. Google "Evidence of speciation", first link on the page: "Observed Instances of Speciation"

oh snap

[BCSpace]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[J.S. Mill]

I'm LDS and consider human evolution to be an indisputable scientific fact. My mtdna shows that I share a common maternal ancestor with a 10,000 year old English skeleton. That predates Eve by a few thousand years.

You also share a common maternal ancestor with giraffes, but that doesn't mean that giraffes are human.

[J.S. Mill]

Joseph Fielding Smith put it very well:

If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?

Hell yes!

:dance:

[Tsuzuki]

You also share a common maternal ancestor with giraffes, but that doesn't mean that giraffes are human.

The owner of the 10,000 year old skeleton was human.

[J.S. Mill]

I don't dispute the conclusion, just the argument intended to support it.

[littlechild]

You don't seem to be looking very hard. Google "Evidence of speciation", first link on the page: "Observed Instances of Speciation"

Those are NOT instances of speciation. That's a lot of double talk. Species are NOT related by common ancestry - there is no single Darwinian Tree of evolution - and there have never been ANY observed beneficial morphological adaptations - and the Darwinian community should be able to produce - not 15 - but hundreds of thousands. They can't and won't - and their theory is bunk.

[littlechild]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

I've read that before, and I find it unpersuasive and unconvincing. What I find convincing is the following books:

Icons of Evolution - in which the 10 major tenets of evolution are systematically debunked.

Darwinian Fairytales - in which the beliefs of evolution are shown to be ludicrous

Intelligent Design 101 - in which is shown how evolutionists distort the science behind intelligent design in order to make themselves feel more faithful in their own religion

There are many others, but I am NOT interested in presenting evidence to those who are members of the cult of Darwin. Their minds are too full of propaganda to reason with on a civil level.

[littlechild]

Anyone who clicks on your links will see some pretty weak stuff: no experiments, but "doubts"; a mathematician with some vague handwaving; and some comments about origin of life (which is a completely separate field from evolution). And you end by knocking down your own claim that there have been experiments discrediting evolution. I guess that's what happens when you go looking for references to back up your claims but there are no experiments to be found.

This is better: Studies on experimental evolution by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html

Origin of life is a separate field from evolution. It could be correctly described as "...a guess, or a hunch, or a hypothesis, these daring assertions serve well, but as testable, falsifiable, or demonstrable truths, they fall exceedingly short of the mark." <--- quoting you. You misplace those comments when trying to describe evolution, yet "origin of life" is what you really should be describing that way. I would agree that how life originated is a mystery, but please don't conflate it with evolution of life (however it happened to originate).

At least nobody is going to deal you a CFR for your humble opinion.

Yes origin of life IS a separate 'field' - to use your words - from evolution. But this doesn't prevent the Miller - Urey experiment from being expounded on at great length in evolution textboooks. Perhaps you have had opportunity to read a few? Perhaps you might want to propose your sentiments to Douglas Futuyma, the author of Evolutionary Biology, a well distributed college text, and inform him that his use of the Miller Urey experiment is out of place.

This is hysterically funny - you dismiss experiments that not only cast great doubt on the theory of evolution - not because of the finding of the experiment itself, but because of your bogus claim that they were performed by a mathematician? HA HA HA - you expect to get a passing grade in your debate class with this form of argument?

What about the results of the experiment which are undeniable ? Or did you even bother to listen to the recording or read the transcript ? Or are you more worried about winning the point than arriving at the truth?

And finally, here's a response to your little link about citrate utilization - it's NOTHING:

"Behe is quite right; there is nothing here that is beyond â??the edge of evolutionâ??, which means it has no relevance to the origin of enzymes and catalytic pathways that evolution is supposed to explain"

This is close to what Michael Behe calls â??The Edge of Evolutionâ??â??the limit of what â??evolutionâ?? (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times.4 With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but itâ??s doubtful that Lenskiâ??s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Beheâ??s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.5

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.6 This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

this would be the sort of thing that mutations are good at: destroying things

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacteriumâ??s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes downâ??a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

[The Dude]

Species are NOT related by common ancestry.

Michael Behe thinks they are related by common ancestry. Many ID proponents believe in common ancestry, just not in the proposed mechanism.

And to respond to your earlier post about reading material, here are some books that I find convincing:

Finding Darwin's God (Miller) -- in which all major claims of creationsim and "debunkings" of evolution are systematically debunked.

The Blind Watchmaker, The Extended Phenotype, and Climbing Mount Improbable (Dawkins) -- in which the claims and evidences for evolution are shown to be more complex and plausible than the creationist fairytale-makers can even imagine

The Tower of Babel (Pennock) -- In which "scientific" Intelligent Design is is shown to be warmed-over religious creationism.

...evolution textboooks. Perhaps you have had opportunity to read a few?

I think it is a poor strategy for you to get snotty while accusing Darwinists of being unable to reason on a civil level (your post #120).

Yes origin of life IS a separate 'field' - to use your words -

Thank you for agreeing that is is a separate field. It does you no good to attack origin of life when you mean to be challenging evolution.

his is hysterically funny - you dismiss experiments that not only cast great doubt on the theory of evolution - not because of the finding of the experiment itself, but because of your bogus claim that they were performed by a mathematician? HA HA HA - you expect to get a passing grade in your debate class with this form of argument?

HA HA HA - Wrong. The experimental claims were from Ralph Seelke, a microbiologist at Department of Biology and Earth Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI, USA.

What about the results of the experiment which are undeniable ? Or did you even bother to listen to the recording or read the transcript ? Or are you more worried about winning the point than arriving at the truth?

Contrary to your claim that the results of the experiment are "undeniable", in fact the results have not been published so they are not even accessible to other scientists. It is very hard to publish a result that concludes "failure" because a negative result like this is indistinguishable from poor scientific skills. The best way to get around that is through your reputation as a scientist. From a search on PubMed I see that Dr. Seelke has not published any peer reviewed manuscripts in the last 22 years (until this month... and I'm not quite sure what to make of it in relation to this discussion so I only bring it up for purposes of disclosure). That's not a great record. I doubt he will ever publish his results but maybe he doesn't need to if they are simply "undeniable"

In listening to the recording you linked, I noticed that Dr. Seelke noted in passing that Dr. Richard Lenski (at U. Minnesota) has done similar bacterial evolution experiments to Seelke's, and Lenski published them this year in a high ranking journal (here is a link). In the audio Dr. Seelke suggested that Richard Lenski "didn't find much" which is not exactly true given the quality of the manuscript which anyone can read. He clearly found the evolution of novel functions. In sum, what I see from Dr. Seelke is far less impressive than what I see from Lenski, and they both use a similar approach for discovering what is possible with bacterial evolution. Why did Dr. Seelke fail? (I think I know) Why should we take his failure over Lenski's success?

This is close to what Michael Behe calls â??The Edge of Evolutionâ??â??the limit of what â??evolutionâ?? (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times.4

I remind you once again that Michael Behe believes in common ancestry. Now what exactly is beyond the reach of complex organisms? It is hard to say what is impossible with organisms that are not experimentally tractable, but we can look at the molecular level and notice discreet changes between the genomes of different species. Going back to Seelke's shrew-bat example from the audio clip, if you took a shrew and converted its DNA to that of a bat then you would have a bat, wouldn't you? So are you saying it is impossible for these changes to happen in nature? How do you know that?

With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but itâ??s doubtful that Lenskiâ??s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Beheâ??s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

It is amusing to see you admit that Lenski's E. coli could have achieved two or more mutations because Dr. Seelke's critical point was that two mutations is virtually impossible. What did you find so interesting about that audio clip? I hope it wasn't the 7 minute prelude of simplistic parsing of creationist terminology (micro vs macro evolution), slim discussion of evidence that makes the evolutionary case (no discussion of molecular evidence), a strawman argument about bat evolution (what about evolution of the eye? evolution of land mammals towards sea mammal? why focus on a made-up bad argument instead of addressing the best arguments for evolution?)... really elementary stuff. I don't see what has you so electrified.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information....

It is true that Lenski has more work to do with discovering what molecular changes happened to give the E. coli a new metabolic ability. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of it. Better to find what is possible than run a poorly designed experiment, see nothing, and declare the system "impossible" as Dr. Seelke is doing. He won't ever be able to publish his work like that. We won't learn anything from him.

[spinner]

First...

If there were anything more substantial than mere assertions that species give rise to other species, that would catch my interest, but in every single case, I find the evidence non-existent.

Then...

the Darwinian community should be able to produce - not 15 - but hundreds of thousands. They can't and won't - and their theory is bunk.

Just keep moving those goalposts, it's already pretty clear that you're not going to listen to any amount of evidence.

[BCSpace]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

I've read that before, and I find it unpersuasive and unconvincing.

Feel free to try and refute just one.

[mnn727]

Another Choice

I am LDS, I believe in evolution, and I believe God created Adam & Eve from primitive speices